MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387931400 · doi:10.1002/mp.16800

Signal‐difference‐to‐noise comparison of temporal subtraction, kV‐switching dual‐energy and photon‐counting dual‐energy x‐ray angiography

2023· article· en· W4387931400 on OpenAlexafffund
Sarah Aubert, Jesse Tanguay

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced X-ray and CT Imaging
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Research Foundation
KeywordsImaging phantomKermaMaterials scienceAngiographyScannerImage qualityOpticsNuclear medicineBiomedical engineeringRadiologyMedicineDosimetryPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Dual-energy (DE) x-ray angiography with photon-counting detectors (PCDs) may enable single-exposure DE imaging of coronary vasculature. PURPOSE: To compare the iodine signal-difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR) of single-exposure DE angiography with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and kV-switching DE angiography for matched patient x-ray exposure. METHODS: In a phantom study, we determined the technique parameters that maximized the iodine SDNR per root entrance air kerma for DSA, kV-switching DE angiography and single-exposure DE angiography. We measured SDNR from images of a phantom consisting of an iodine step-wedge immersed in a water tank of either 20 or 30 cm in thickness. We also imaged a phantom with simulated vessels embedded in background clutter and measured vessel SDNR. For this second phantom, we also applied anti-correlated noise reduction (ACNR) and calculated the resulting iodine SDNR. All images were acquired using a cadmium telluride PCD with two energy bins and analog charge summing for charge sharing suppression. The energy-discrimination capabilities were only used for the single-exposure DE approach. Optimized techniques were compared in terms of SDNR per root air kerma for two levels of x-ray scatter. RESULTS: For the same patient x-ray exposure, the SDNR of single-exposure DE imaging without ACNR was 75% to 85% of that of kV-switching DE imaging (also without ACNR) and DSA, the latter two of which had nearly equal SDNR. The single-exposure DE approach required ∼50% of the tube load of the kV-switching approach to achieve the same SDNR. For matched patient air kermas, the single exposure approach required only ∼25% of the tube load of the kV-switching approach. ACNR increased SDNR by 2.4 and 3.0 for kV-switching and single-exposure DE imaging, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Photon-counting, single-exposure DE angiography can suppress soft tissues and provide iodine SDNR levels comparable to DSA and kV-switching DE angiography for matched patient radiation exposures. When ACNR is used to reduce DE image noise, the SDNR of single-exposure DE imaging and kV-switching DE imaging exceed that of DSA by more than a factor of two. Compared to kV-switching DE imaging, single-exposure DE imaging requires substantially lower tube loading to achieve the same SDNR.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicAdvanced X-ray and CT ImagingFrench-language works237,207